Following up from a few points I raised in the conference call last
week, I'm really concerned how the current model in the PWD doesn't meet
the core needs of AR.
This is not a criticism of the work that Matt and Raj have done. It's
just a real concern I have. I know Raj mentioned that this may be
treated through an "AR profile", but I'm not sure how or if that is
proceeding.
So the wording in the subject above isn't really strong enough and
doesn't capture the crux of the point I was raising.
At the moment there is no way to link other digital content like images
and 3d models to a POI in the current PWD. Without this there is no AR
use for this standard 8(
>From my perspective I'd rather see a stripped down data model that
simply has a point based on fixed lat/lon or relative lat/lon and then
almost all else able to be linked externally. And optionally the linked
data could then be pre-gathered and delivered inline along the lines of
cid: links in MIME based email messages. But this last point is really
just a serialisation discussion.
To me, a lot of the other mapping focused points around "near",
"category" and "other geometry" discussions are distracting, open ended
rabbit holes that are consuming a lot of discussion time with little
resolution...while some critical hard requirements have been completely
omitted.
If there's a process for working on the "AR profile" then please let me
know what it is and I'll happily take on that task. Otherwise, I really
have to push hard for simplifying the model and adding a more AR related
focus back in.
roBman